I know you had complaints about the press during your presidential run ... when do you think the media started changing along the lines you describe?

Different kinds of people were taking over newspapers and TV. And they began a change in the value structure in the media. Watergate was part of that, it was a shift away from traditional news to personalities. And you sensed that during Watergate that the public was more interested in personalities than they were in policy. Then lots of young people went into journalism to become Woodward and Bernstein, and to become famous for exposé. And the reward system changed. It was more traditional journalism up to the mid-'70s than what it's been afterwards. Then the media structure changed when the Murdochs of the world came in. Families didn't own newspapers anymore. And it affected books, movies -- virtually every part of our society.

Along those lines, I wanted to ask you about comments Sen. McGovern made a few months ago at a reception in his honor in South Dakota. You, his former campaign manager, introduced him and he took a moment -- a poignant moment -- to thank you and sing your praises and tell the world that, yes, you made a mistake in your personal life during your presidential race but it was high time for people to get over it. Was that an emotional moment for you?

I have no response to that.

Well, do you feel any sort of vindication? I mean, in 1988 you were telling the press to pay attention to the more serous issues and the media was more focused on other things, and then 9/11 happens and it's like you were right all along. Do you feel vindicated?

No. Three thousand people died, how can you feel vindicated? Three thousand people who may not have had to have died if a lot of things had been different. If the whole value structure we've been talking about -- what's important, what's not important -- had been different. Why didn't our nation appreciate the threats out there? Why as a country are we so self-absorbed? This is pretty profound stuff, and most politicians are not talking about these issues. This isn't about politicians or the media or the members of our commission -- it's about all of us, about our country. We were growing inward at a time we should have been turning outward. We should have been learning about the world, instead we were focusing on the love lives of movie stars and politicians. It's what I said before about Page 1 vs. Page 16 -- some things are more important than others.

So no, I don't think Warren or I or anyone on that commission ever said, "I told you so." I don't think any of us feel that way. I don't, at any rate. The consequences are just too sad. But where I have become angry is about whether we're learning anything from this. Whether the media is learning anything from it. When the next commission issues a warning, will a New York Times reporter walk out of the room without filing a story? It's Santayana all over again -- he who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.

I recall your presidential runs in '84 and '88 and you seemed at the time like you were bursting with "new ideas" and optimism and hope about America. And you now seem -- well, I know there's a lot of water under the bridge -- but you seem pessimistic about the U.S.

I'm not getting pessimistic. What you're getting from me is frustration from a lifetime of pushing a rock up a hill. The best book I think I ever wrote was in 1995, it was called "The Good Fight." It was a New York Times "notable book" and it was as autobiographical as anything I've ever written. And in it, I asked: Why is it so hard to change a country that sees itself as progressive and change oriented? And I never really answered the question. It's a struggle I have with my own country. We see ourselves as progressive and change oriented but in fact, over time, when we have opportunities to make change, we inevitably resist change. Why for instance did it take George Bush a year and a half to see what had to be done? What is it that causes us to be so schizophrenic?

So, what you hear from me is frustration. Not pessimism. I'm a very optimistic person. I don't think those 3,000 people had to die. And when you think that way you can't be Pollyannaish, and think everything is always going to work out for the best. It's more of a Keynesian sense -- it will work out. But why does it have to take so long? Why are people so resistant to doing things that to me seem so obvious? Military reform, intelligence reform, this commission, adapting to the information age. Why is it taking so long to reform a political campaign-finance process that is obviously corrupt and broken?

But it's not pessimism. Pessimism is thinking that it's never gonna be different. Frustration is thinking it can be different, but you gotta keep trying to make it so.

Recent Stories